The psychometric properties of the general phubbing scale in adolescents

Year 2023, Volume: 16 Issue: 3, 392 - 403, 01.07.2023

Erdal Görkem Gavcar , Ahmet Büber , Murat Balkıs , Çağlar Şimşek

https://doi.org/10.31362/patd.1232372

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Purpose: Numerous studies indicate that the use of smartphones among adolescents has increased recently. Studies on phubbing generally focus on how parental phubbing affects adolescents. This study aims to contribute to the literature by revealing the validity and reliability of the scale measuring phubbing behavior in adolescents.
Material and methods: The sample included 206 adolescents aged 12-17 who applied to Pamukkale University Medical Faculty Hospital Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Outpatient Clinics and Kırıkkale Yüksek İhtisas Hospital Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Outpatient Clinic.
Results: To evaluate the construct validity of the General Phubbing Scale (GPS) in adolescents, first and second level confirmatory factor analyses were performed. The data model fit was shown to be at an acceptable level. The general phubbing was negatively related to social connectedness and positively related to internet addiction. Test-retest analysis indicated that the subdimensions nomophobia, interpersonal conflict, self-isolation, problem acknowledgment, and total score were 0.82, 0.80, 0.71, 0.66 and 0.81, respectively. The coefficients of internal consistency for the subdimensions of nomophobia, interpersonal conflict, self-isolation, problem acknowledgment, and total score were 0.78, 0.85, 0.92, 0.77, and 0.94. Furthermore, it has been shown that the GPS structure was identical for both genders.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the GPS can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool for determining general phubbing levels for the clinical adolescent sample.

Keywords

Phubbing, adolescent, smartphone

Ergen yaş grubunda genel phubbing ölçeği’nin psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Birçok çalışmada son yıllarda ergenler arasında akıllı telefon kullanımının arttığı gösterilmektedir. Phubbing ile ilgili yapılan çalışmalarda, genellikle ebeveyn phubbing davranışının ergenler üzerindeki etkilerine yoğunlaşıldığı görülmektedir. Phubbing davranışını ölçen ve ergenlerdeki geçerlik ve güvenilirliği yapılmış bir ölçeği ortaya koyarak literatüre katkı sunulması amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmanın örneklemini, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi Çocuk ve Ergen Ruh Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Poliklinikleri’ne ve Kırıkkale Yüksek İhtisas Hastanesi Çocuk ve Ergen Ruh Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Polikliniği’ne başvuran 12-17 yaş arası 206 ergen oluşturmaktadır.
Bulgular: Genel Phubbing Ölçeğinin (GPÖ) ergenler için yapı geçerliği test etmek amacıyla birinci ve ikinci düzey doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve veri model uyumunun kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu gösterilmiştir. Genel phubbingin, sosyal bağlılık ile olumsuz yönde ve internet bağımlılığı ile olumlu yönde ilişkili olduğu ortaya koyulmuştur. Test tekrar test analizleri korelasyon sonuçları; nomofobi, kişiler arası çatışma, kişisel izolasyon, problem kabulü alt boyutları ve toplam puan için sırasıyla 0,82, 0,80, 0,71, 0,66 ve 0,81 olduğu gösterilmiştir. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayısıları ise; nomofobi, kişiler arası çatışma, kişisel izolasyon, problem kabulü alt boyutları ve toplam puan için sırasıyla 0,78, 0,85, 0,92, 0,77 ve 0,94 olarak saptanmıştır. Ayrıca, GPÖ’nün her iki cinsiyet için de aynı yapıya sahip olduğunu gösterilmiştir.
Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın bulguları GPÖ’nün klinik ergen örneklemi için Genel Phubbing düzeylerini belirlemede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Phubbing, ergen, akıllı telefon

References

• 1. Erzen E, Odaci H, Yeniçeri İ. Phubbing: which personality traits are prone to phubbing? Soc Sci Comput Rev 2019;39:56-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319847415
• 2. Capilla Garrido E, Issa T, Gutiérrez Esteban P, Cubo Delgado S. A descriptive literature review of phubbing behaviors. Heliyon 2021;7:07037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07037
• 3. Anshari M, Alas Y, Hardaker G, Jaidin JH, Smith M, Ahad AD. Smartphone habit and behavior in Brunei: personalization, gender, and generation gap. Comput Human Behav 2016;64:719-727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.063
• 4. Zhang K, Chongyang C, Zhao S, Lee M. Understanding the role of motives in smartphone addiction. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 18th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems 24-28 June 2014; Chengdu, China
• 5. Mérelle SYM, Kleiboer AM, Schotanus M, et al. Which health-related problems are associated with problematic video-gaming or social media use in adolescents? A large-scale cross-sectional study. Clin Neuropsychiatry J Treat Eval 2017;14:11-19.
• 6. Savcı M, Aysan F. Technological addictions and social connectedness: predictor effect of internet addiction, social media addiction, digital game addiction and smartphone addiction on social connectedness. Dusunen Adam J Psychiatry Neurol Sci 2017;30:202-216.
• 7. Anderson M, Jiang J. Teens, social media & technology 2018. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/. Accessed December 25, 2022
• 8. Davey S, Davey A. Assessment of smartphone addiction in indian adolescents: a mixed method study by systematic-review and meta-analysis approach. Int J Prev Med 2014;5:1500-1511.
• 9. Lopez Fernandez O. Problem mobile phone use in Spanish and British adolescents: first steps towards across-cultural research in Europe. In: Giuseppe R, Brenda K, Pietro C, ed. The Psychology of Social Networking Vol.2. De Gruyter Open Poland 2015;2:186-201. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110473858-015
• 10. Yen CF, Tang TC, Yen JY, et al. Symptoms of problematic cellular phone use, functional impairment and its association with depression among adolescents in Southern Taiwan. J Adolesc 2009;32:863-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.006
• 11. Fischer Grote L, Kothgassner OD, Felnhofer A. Risk factors for problematic smartphone use in children and adolescents: a review of existing literature. Neuropsychiatr 2019;33:179-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40211-019-00319-8
• 12. Pendergrass WS, Town C. Phubbing: communication in the attention economy. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems 2017; Texas, USA.
• 13. Hassanzadeh R, Rezaei A. Effect of sex, course and age on SMS addiction in students. Middle-East J Sci Res 2011;10:619-625.
• 14. Tao R, Huang X, Wang J, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Li M. Proposed diagnostic criteria for internet addiction. Addiction 2010;105:556-564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02828.x
• 15. Wood RTA. Problems with the concept of video game “addiction”: some case study examples. Int J Ment Health Addict 2008;6:169-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9118-0
• 16. Karadağ E, Tosuntaş Ş B, Erzen E, et al. Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: a structural equation model. J Behav Addict 2015;4:60-74. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.005
• 17. Nazir T, Pişkin M. Phubbing: a technological invasion which connected the world but disconnected humans. Int J Indian Psychol 2016;3:2348-2396. http://dx.doi.org/10.25215/0304.195
• 18. Aagaard J. Digital akrasia: a qualitative study of phubbing. Ai Soc 2020;35:237-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00876-0
• 19. Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM. The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. J Appl Soc Psychol 2018;48:304-316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12506
• 20. Blanca MJ, Bendayan R. Spanish version of the Phubbing Scale: internet addiction, Facebook intrusion, and fear of missing out as correlates. Psicothema 2018;30:449-454. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.153
• 21. Ugur NG, Koc T. Time for digital detox: misuse of mobile technology and phubbing. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 2015;195:1022-1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.491
• 22. Ivanova A, Gorbaniuk O, Błachnio A, et al. Mobile phone addiction, phubbing, and depression among men and women: a moderated mediation analysis. Psychiatric Quarterly 2020;91:655-668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-020-09723-8
• 23. Sun J, Samp J. Phubbing is happening to you: examining predictors and effects of phubbing behaviour in friendships. Behaviour Information Technology 2022;41:2691-2704. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1943711
• 24. Geng J, Lei L, Ouyang M, Nie J, Wang P. The influence of perceived parental phubbing on adolescents' problematic smartphone use: a two-wave multiple mediation model. Addictive Behaviors 2021;121:106995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106995
• 25. Parmaksız I, Kılıçarslan S. Aggression and emotional intelligence as predictors of phubbing. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews 2021;10:189-203. https://doi.org/10.52963/PERR_Biruni_V10.N3.12
• 26. Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM. How “phubbing” becomes the norm: the antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Comput Human Behav 2016;63:9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018
• 27. Rainie L, Zickuhr K. Americans’ views on mobile etiquette 2015. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-etiquette/. Accessed December 25, 2022
• 28. Abeele MMP Vanden, Antheunis ML, Schouten AP. The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Comput Human Behav 2016;62:562-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.005
• 29. Cameron AF, Webster J. Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organ Sci 2011;22:754-771. https://doi/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
• 30. Misra S, Cheng L, Genevie J, Yuan M. The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environ Behav 2016;48:275-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514539755
• 31. Wang X, Gao L, Yang J, Zhao F, Wang P. Parental phubbing and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: self-esteem and perceived social support as moderators. J Youth Adolesc 2020;49:427-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01185-x
• 32. Niu G, Yao L, Wu L, Tian Y, Xu L, Sun X. Parental phubbing and adolescent problematic mobile phone use: the role of parent-child relationship and self-control. Child Youth Serv Rev 2020;116:105247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105247
• 33. Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM. Measuring phone snubbing behavior: Development and validation of the generic scale of phubbing (GSP) and the generic scale of being phubbed (GSBP). Comput Human Behav 2018;88:5-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.020
• 34. Sansevere K, Ward N. Linking phubbing behavior to self-reported attentional failures and media multitasking. Future Internet 2021;13:100. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13040100
• 35. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Psychology press 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315827506
• 36. Kline P. An easy guide to factor analysis. 1st ed. London: Routledge 1994. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315788135
• 37. Bryman A Cramer D. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows. 1st ed. London: Routledge 2001. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471548
• 38. Kline RB. Handbook of methodological innovation. In: M. Williams, ed. Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 2011.
• 39. Ergün N, Göksu İ, Sakız H. Effects of phubbing: relationships with psychodemographic variables. Psychol Rep 2019;123:1578-1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119889581
• 40. Young KS. Caught in the net: how to recognize the signs of internet addiction--and a winning strategy for recovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1998.
• 41. Pawlikowski M, Altstötter Gleich C, Brand M. Validation and psychometric properties of a short version of Young’s internet addiction test. Comput Human Behav 2013;29:1212-1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.014
• 42. Kutlu M, Savcı M, Demir Y, Aysan F. Turkish version of Young's internet addiction test short form: a validity and reliability study in university students and adolescents. Anadolu Psikiyatr Derg 2016;17:69-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/apd.190501
• 43. Lee RM, Robbins SB. Measuring belongingness: the social connectedness and the social assurance scales. J Couns Psychol 1995;42:232-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232
• 44. Duru E. Sosyal bağlılık ölçeğinin türk kültürüne uyarlanmasi. Eurasian J Educ Res 2007;26:85-94.
• 45. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981;18:39-50.
• 46. Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanisoğlu SY. Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices. Turkiye Klin J Med Sci 2013;33:210-223. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2011-26747
• 47. Özdamar K. Paket programlarla istatistiksel veri analizi-1. 5th ed. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitapevi; 2004.
• 48. Savcı M, Aysan F. Technological addictions and social connectedness: the predictive effect of internet addiction, social media addiction, digital game addiction and smartphone addiction on social connectedness. Dusunen Adam 2017;30:202-216. https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2017300304
• 49. Ang CS, Teo KM, Ong YL, Siak SL. Investigation of a preliminary mixed method of phubbing and social connectedness in adolescents. Addict Heal 2019;11:1-10. https://doi.org/10.22122%2Fahj.v11i1.539
• 50. Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. 1.Baskı. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2005.
• 51. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Vol. 2, Int J Med Educ England; 2011.
• 52. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334.
• 53. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: a simple guide and reference, 11.0 Update. Michigan: Allyn and Bacon, 2003.
• 54. Tavşancıl E. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. 5th ed. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, 2005.
• 55. Başusta NB, Gelbal S. Examination of measurement invariance at groups' comparisons: a study on PISA student questionnaire. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Derg 2015;30:80-90.
• 56. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model a Multidiscip J 2007;14:464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834